Comcast to customers: Just trust us about changed net neutrality pledges

Comcast is defending its changed net neutrality pledges in the face of criticism from Internet users.

The deletion of a net neutrality promise immediately after the Federal Communications Commission started repealing its net neutrality rules is just a "language" change, the company says. Comcast is telling customers that it still has no plans to institute paid prioritization—while avoiding a promise that it won't do so in the future.

April 26 is when Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced the first version of his plan to eliminate net neutrality rules. The paid prioritization statement has been missing from that page since then, though Comcast still says it doesn't block, throttle, or "discriminate against" lawful Internet traffic.

Comcast's net neutrality promise from 2014 until April 26, 2017.

Comcast's net neutrality promise since April 27, 2017.

Comcast, the biggest home Internet provider in the US, has declined to tell us why this language changed. But Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice spoke to the Denver Post about the change yesterday. "Is the language exactly the same in 2017 as 2010? No," Fitzmaurice said, according to the Post'sstory.

In 2014, Comcast said that it agreed with then-President Obama's stance that there should be "no paid prioritization."

Paid prioritization vs. data cap exemptions

Why has the language changed? Fitzmaurice pointed to filings that Comcast made with the FCC this year.

"Part of the filings we did this year about paid prioritization is that there have been some things in the marketplace that have come out and been pro-consumer," she told the Post. "Some people call it 'zero ratings.' Some people call it paid prioritization, like T-Mobile's Binge On plan. A lot were up in arms about it but a lot of consumers seemed to like it."

Fitzmaurice, who also made the zero-rating comparison a few days ago on Twitter, is conflating two different things here.

Paid prioritization would involve a website or online application provider paying an ISP like Comcast for faster access to Internet users and is banned outright by the current net neutrality rules.

Zero-rating is the exemption of certain Internet content from data caps. This isn't banned by the net neutrality rules, but it could fall afoul of the FCC's "general conduct rule" if it is implemented in a way that harms consumers or competitors.

T-Mobile's Binge On program exempts video sites from data caps but doesn't require video providers to pay for the zero-rating. The FCC under then-Chairman Tom Wheeler said this sort of program was allowed because it benefited consumers without harming video providers.

Wheeler's FCC tried to stop AT&T and Verizon's zero-rating programs because those companies exempt their own video services from data caps while charging other video providers for the same exemptions. Pai ended that investigation when he took over as chair and said that the FCC would not punish carriers for any zero-rating programs, so there have effectively been no restrictions on zero-rating for nearly a year.

Comcast could thus adopt zero-rating today with no fear of reprisal from the FCC, but it has to wait for the net neutrality rules to be eliminated before implementing paid prioritization.

Comcast has also been saying that paid prioritization should be allowed because it would benefit telemedicine systems. But the current rules already contain an exception that lets ISPs provide isolated network capacity to telemedicine and certain other applications.

After the FCC eliminates the rules, ISPs will be free to sell priority access to any kind of website or online service.

“No plans” for paid prioritization

Comcast's official Twitter account has also been responding to angry Internet users who criticized Comcast for changing its net neutrality promises. In dozens of tweets sent to people who criticized the company, Comcast said, "We haven't entered into any paid prioritization agreements and we have no plans to do so." (Here is one of those tweets.)

But the deletion of the paid prioritization pledge from Comcast's net neutrality webpage could be important after the FCC drops its net neutrality rules. If ISPs make promises and then break them, the Federal Trade Commission could punish them for misleading customers. Scaling back promises could help Comcast avoid government interference if it implements paid prioritization in the future.

Comcast's language change "could signal that they plan to do some things that they didn't plan to before or it could signal they want flexibility and they don't have any plans," University of Colorado Boulder law professor Blake Reid told the Denver Post.

Promoted Comments

If Comcast (and other providers) are sincere about these promises that they will not block access, throttle, or create fast lanes without the "burden" of Net Neutrality laws, then what actual harm comes from passing Net Neutrality?

Simply put, they do not want to be held accountable. They want a seat at the table with Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Equifax, and countless more have been allowed to sit at over the last decade. Should anything go wrong, with anything, ever (be creative here), once again we will see the rise of the latest robber baron mantra, "privatize the profits, but socialize the losses".

Oh, I believe Comcast is totally committed to net neutrality. Because that's the rule right now. And once their lackeys in the FCC obliterate that rule, they'll delete that web page and start drawing up plans for how to double-dip on fees from providers and customers to milk the new situation for all its worth.

They're covering their bases for when the "fury dies down" and they can continue with business as usual; hoping likely that the constant stream of scandals in our political zoo will eventually distract the general populace and they can get back to work. It's like red light green light for extracting extra profit at zero cost to them.

If Comcast (and other providers) are sincere about these promises that they will not block access, throttle, or create fast lanes without the "burden" of Net Neutrality laws, then what actual harm comes from passing Net Neutrality?

Simply put, they do not want to be held accountable. They want a seat at the table with Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Equifax, and countless more have been allowed to sit at over the last decade. Should anything go wrong, with anything, ever (be creative here), once again we will see the rise of the latest robber baron mantra, "privatize the profits, but socialize the losses".

If ISPs make promises and then break them, the Federal Trade Commission could punish them for misleading customers.

That's cute that you think the US government would do anything to punish the ISPs no matter what they do.ISPs have been lying to consumers for decades and have stolen over $400 billion from their subscribers. Please link the articles written about how they were held accountable for these injustices.

They have no plans to create paid prioritization deals because it is currently not permitted to do so. The day the rules are overturned, they will officially enter negotiations to create those fast lanes.

Any way the FTC can step in and stop some of the billing shenanigans or other blatant anti-consumer practices?

Probably not. The "Restoring Internet Freedom" order allows ISPs (if I read it correctly, I think it was page 102 - and if I'm wrong, downvote away) to classify themselves as common carrier or not. If they do, the FTC can't oversee them (legal case pending on that one). And we know the FCC will refuse to do so.

I am confused. How did they falsely equate fast lanes with data exemptions?

Isn't it natural in a non-NN environment that a non-preferred service would cost your data while a preferred or first party would be free? Cell phones services do it now.

It wasn't clear in the article. However, it seems like the mostly likely way it will go forward. Blocking access doesn't make an ISP any money. Counting it against your data cap though can build toward that.

Have to wonder if the only reason this statement exists is so Ajit Pai can point at it and declares, with no additional support, that he believes it. I don't know if Comcast and Verizon are actively colluding or if the person in charge of PR at Comcast got the jar of spoiled mayonnaise all Comcast employees must use in lieu of a brain today, but Comcast has to know that no one that has ever had a negative experience with Comcast would ever trust them again, and that this implicates, if not a majority, a serious plurality of Comcast customers.

So this is either an attempt to appease shareholders, a very poor attempt to appease customers, a hail-mary attempt to get something knocking around the media echo-chamber to the point where someone starts thinking of it as fact, or a quasi-intelligent attempt to mitigate the damage they just caused to the arguments of people advocating rent-seeking that would benefit them.

It all starts with the "good" exemptions like zero-rated services, and then the darker stuff just piles on. I too like the concept of getting things for free, but stuff like Bing-on was always just a sugar-coated poison pill, and we're starting to feel the inevitable nausea.

Every bit should cost the same as it crosses the wire (or uses part of a reserved chunk of wireless spectrum). This is the only thing that makes sense in the end, and ensures that the costs of the infrastructure are fairly expensed.

I saw a comcast sales person in my neighborhood. So I walked behind him and told all my neighbors he spoke with about why comcast is horrible, the benefits of net neutrality, and what comcast was doing to try and circumvent those laws. Needless to say, xfinity-asshole didn't get a single sale that day. Still don't feel square though.

Net Neutrality seems like a great example of the Overton Window. With no rules these companies can play with their profit schemes until they find the most exploitative method that the public will accept. The T-Mobile 'binge-on' is a great example; I'm sure many uninformed consumers liked it and I can't really blame them.

The walled garden approach of AOL back in the day was quite acceptable to many and I fear that is where we are headed.

Any way the FTC can step in and stop some of the billing shenanigans or other blatant anti-consumer practices?

Probably not. The "Restoring Internet Freedom" order allows ISPs (if I read it correctly, I think it was page 102 - and if I'm wrong, downvote away) to classify themselves as common carrier or not. If they do, the FTC can't oversee them (legal case pending on that one). And we know the FCC will refuse to do so.

In line with your great point, I also think that Comcast doesn’t want to put anything in writing because of the possibility that the FTC COULD file suit for making claims that they couldn’t/wouldn’t keep.

If you are Comcast, who owns NBC, or AT&T, who may shortly own Time Warner, then you get absolutely get money by blocking access... to services that compete directly with your bussines units. YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix (among many others) all compete with NBC/Universal and Time Warner video content subscription and advertisement-based video services. Slow or shut those other services down, and you have a good way to drive your customers to your own services as an alternate.

I am confused. How did they falsely equate fast lanes with data exemptions?

Isn't it natural in a non-NN environment that a non-preferred service would cost your data while a preferred or first party would be free? Cell phones services do it now.

It wasn't clear in the article. However, it seems like the mostly likely way it will go forward. Blocking access doesn't make an ISP any money. Counting it against your data cap though can build toward that.

Fast lanes indicate data speeds while data exemptions have nothing to do with speed and everything to do with volume.

They aren't going to block content from sources that don't pay the fast lane tolls, they will just slow it down. If you want to put it into cell phone terms, it's like providers offering unlimited data plans which downgrade to 3G after the first 5GB of data is used.

I dislike the assertion that zero-rating traffic on a data-capped connection is functionally different than outright throttling. Instead of network-side shenanigans, it appears to work more like consumer-side or socially-engineered throttling where it incentivizes the end user to choose one service over another, but with the same result of manipulating end user decision making.

If I pay $50 for 5 gigs of data and I have to choose between two services (hd video streaming, let's say), one of which is zero-rated, then the actual cost to me is a difference of $10/hr vs $0/hr. I have been successfully diverted from one service to another without any need to fiddle with QoS settings. Insidious.

Net Neutrality seems like a great example of the Overton Window. With no rules these companies can play with their profit schemes until they find the most exploitative method that the public will accept. The T-Mobile 'binge-on' is a great example; I'm sure many uninformed consumers liked it and I can't really blame them.

The walled garden approach of AOL back in the day was quite acceptable to many and I fear that is where we are headed.

The walled garden was a good idea back then. For the average (non-tech) user, it was quite difficult to get online and get the information, etc. they were looking for.

Once allowed, any web site or online service who enters into a paid prioritization agreement with an ISP is complicit in harming consumers, small business, the open internet, etc and should be boycotted.

All these companies that are "for net neutrality" should pledge not to buy into any ISP bullshit, so that everyone remains on equal footing. It doesn't have to be up to the ISP. And if those ISPs deliberately throttle or block in an effort to get people to buy in, then there is cause for legal action perhaps via the FTC or your state prosecutor.

"Comcast should be offended by the implied accusations everyone has been making recently; a contract is unnecessary because their sales people are expected to do the right thing for you.", says all of the supportive organisations representing auto dealers and real estate agents eveywhere.